Eric Feldt Replies to Dr

Dr. Hogbin

Letter to the Editor rE gravamen of the charge of Dr.

Hogbin against the whites who lived in New Guinea (May “PIM”) is that those whites thought themselves superior to the Melanesians, and acted accord ingly.

Let us admit that the charge is quite true—though some of the phenomena from which Dr. Hogbin’s conclusion derives need correction.

We did, and do, think ourselves superior —not by reason of pigmentation of the skin, or lack of it, but because of our superior achievements. The Melanesians failed to produce metal tools for their own use, were unable to make a building that would last more than a few years, had no medicines with which to cure their own ills, and could not even feed themselves adequately under the easiest of conditions. Nor have the Melanesians made any contributions to mathematics, science, art or philosophy.

To-day,. Melanesians use what the civilised races have produced, but the con verse does not happen. If Dr. Hogbin believes that a stone adze is superior to a bull-dozer, coconut better than beer, and the Cargo Cult a higher ethic than the Sermon on the Mount, he is entitled to his opinion; but most whites will adhere to their view that the whites are superior, else the words good and bad have no meaning.

AS regards the much discussed word, “boy,” there is a certain cynical amusement to be derived at finding that Dr. Hogbin does not know Pidgin.

Pidgin is not merely corrupt English; it is a language. It is derived mainly from English; but words in Pidgin, tnough pronounced as in English, some times have a different meaning. The Pidgin word “boi” is one such word. It does not mean boy (juvenile)—it means a native who is in employment.

A native who is not in employment is “kanaka.” Natives use the word “boi” amongst themselves; “mi velo boi” is a common expression. Ask any native who is under indenture what he will do when it is ended, and he will reply; “Mi go kanaka,” if he intends to return to his village and work no more. The word for boy (juvenile) is “munki.” If Dr.

Hogbin were in a French restaurant, would he refuse to use the word “garcon” if hs wanted to call the waiter?

DR. HOGBIN’S assertion that “natives showed no great keenness to enter employment, asked for higher wages and went on strike when these were re fused” does not tally with history. There was one strike, in Rabaul, for a day and a half, in 1929, and never another in the period of the Mandate before the Japs invaded. The number of natives under indenture increased from year to year. Some of us saw this with mis giving, as work was too popular, and drew too many natives away from their villages.

However, regarding the opinions of natives, it is unwise to saddle all with the views of a few, as opinions differ even amongst natives. If it is quoted, for in stance, that a native expressed himself as in favour of the indenture system, it would not be accepted by Dr. Hogbin as representative of all native thought.

It is also a fact that a native will often, to oblige, express the opinion that the questioner wants. Furthermore, recent experience colours opinion.

So if a native’s recent experience of Europeans has been contact with an anthropologist who lived in a village as one of themselves, such a native might genuinely come to the conclusion that

there is no superiority in the white man.

And, under the same circumstances, an anthropologist might sincerely believe that male sexual jealousy was involved in the white man’s attitude.

BUT, if natives thought so badly of us, why did they show such loyalty to us during the war? Could the deeds of Yauwika, Yali, Simogun and a host of others be born of a resentment against the white man? It is logical to believe that they risked their lives daily for men they disliked and despised?

How great was the loss when F. E.

Williams was killed on war service!

I am, etc.,

Eric Feldt.

Brisbane, 30/5/48.